"Difficulties with this hypothesis include the challenges of crossing the Atlantic with the technology of the time as well as a temporal gap of millennia between the apparent end of the Solutrean culture and the earliest discovered Clovis tools."

I'm deleting and/or changing the italicised because both have been dated to 17,000 years ago. Also, if you take into acount the possible inacuracy of the Cactus Hill dating, it could have overlapped by even more. It seems POV to assume that just because they onyl overlapped by a little it couldn't have happened. It's certainly not a difference of millenia. --Lophoole 21:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why it read apparent end of the Solutrean culture and the earliest discovered Clovis tools - not including possible transitional pre-Clovis sites such as Cactus Hill or Meadowcroft. I was merely describing the critics' most common arguments against the theory.

You're right that it is POV to completely exclude the possibility because of a gap in the archaeological record. Any founding groups of N/W European origin, if they existed, were likely small in number and would have left fewer sites. As with species in the fossil record, transitional types would have been fewer in number as well. It doesn't mean they didn't exist - we just have to identify them. The fact that a significant portion of the coastlines, along which humans often migrate, has been underwater for millenia. And who knows what type of early settlements lie under present human settlements today. Twalls 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever started this article needs to provide supportive links.--64.79.127.126 20:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references; more can be posted, surely. Twalls 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the following text until further evaluation. There may be something that can be gained from it, but I am not sure the whole kit and caboodle belongs in this article. Twalls 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation and blatant falsification of work by a former archaelogist (Frank Hibbens)have historically led to the popularization and wide acceptance of innacurate data as factual, lending ideological support for the solutrean hypothesis. Unfortunately his innaccuracies and falsified data continue to go on being quoted as supporting evidence for the solutrean theory, when they have now been duly shown as falsifications.

In a 1936 expedition in Sandia Cave, a cave in the Sandia Mountains, experienced archeologist Wesley Bliss excavated the Sandia Cave and reported his findings to University of New Mexico project head Dr. Brand. Another student Frank C. Hibben who was not involved in the intial excavation, but rather later work in the cave; he later reported to have found the famous Sandia spearpoint beneath a layer of material dating greater than 25,000 years old, along with the bones of camels, mastadons, and prehistoric horses. However the bones(carbon dating from 14,000-20,000 years ago (16,000-14,000 BCE) and together with his innacurate identification of the historical sedimentary layers and the published notes of Bliss and others in reference to the poor layer integrity and contamination associated with rodent burrowing, the supposed spearpoint from the suggested 25,000 year old sedimentary layer was erroneously reported by Hibbens. Ref. A Chronological Problem Presented by Sandia Cave, New Mexico. American Antiquity, 1940a 5(3):200-201. Ref. Sandia Cave. Correspondence in American Antiquity, 1940b 6(1):77-78.

Frank Hibben's publication of the Clovis point as dated older than 25,000 years ago is used as some of the strongest evidence for the existence of a pre-folsom man in north america(as contended by the authors of the controversial Forbidden Archaeology). However, his papers were false representations of the initial excavation work of Dr. Wesley Bliss, who noted the proper layers, and the poor layer integrity in areas, among other findings that were eroneously misconstrued and reported by Frank Hibbens to meet his theory. Dr. Bliss did not find any of the spearpoints in the layers reported later by Hibbens. It is now believed that the spearpoints were not as old as was originally reported by Hibben, and it is believed that Hibben's sloppy work and false testiment to man's history in North America has greatly hindered the accuracy of our understanding of prehistoric north america. Frank Hibben's was generously rewarded for this false work, which assisted him greatly in starting his famous and impressive career, supported by the University of New Mexico. However a coverup of the errors in Hibben's work ensued for 60 years, until it has finally been openly acknowledged and reported. Ref. The Mystery of Sandia Cave. New Yorker, 71(16):66-83

I just read the portion regarding MtDNA Haplogroup X, and the article/link itself does not "conclusively" argue that there is a link between Solutrean culture from Europe and Paleo-Indians. Also, the article states that the Group X strain can also be found in Mongolia, so it can also be argued that this distinct DNA sequence can also derive from the Siberian passage way.

The bottom line is that more work has to be done on "MtDNA Haplogroup X" in both Asia, North America and Europe. --71.177.84.72 08:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the conclusion was that the strain in Altai area was a relatively recent arrival. But thanks for pointing that out -- I'll have to have another look at the link or at least ID the study that shows evidence of a more recent arrival of X in that area (around 5KYA) from the West and that it was equally distant from both European and American varieties of X. On the other hand, although X is not found in Siberia or Western Asia, we can't say it wasn't present in the past - populations die out, migrate or are assimilated, or just are not captured in sample groups. In any case, more work has to be done on X, as you say. Twalls 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"More work has to be done" - this ending statement from the Article should have been the article's title. No fault of your own for including it since it does relate to the genetic origins for ancient Americans. What I find more interesting is that the Haplogroup X marker is present in 25% of the NorthEastern tribes, but only 4% of present day Europeans. It almost makes me believe that Solutreans weren't that closely related to modern day Ibero-Franconians yet closer to Ojibwe/Algonquians. --96.229.67.221 23:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Paine 1776, you have not made the case for Europeans arriving "first" other than citing the title of a LiveScience article. The title was written by the author of the article, not the proponents of the theory. The Solutrean hypothesis simply does not address the chronology of any other possible population routes to the Americas, and other sites (such as Monte Verde I) are completely outside the scope of the theory. You're attempting to introduce an exclusionary element as a feature of the theory, when there in fact is none. As I have pointed out to you on the discussion page for Indigenous peoples of the Americas several times, the Solutrean model does not speak for or against earlier migrations via other routes. If you maintain that the Solutrean theory also explicitly excludes other routes, please provide citations from the literature, not the title of a newspaper article or TV show. Twalls 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked out a compromise which includes my earlier edits to the last section in the article. "The hypothesis suggests that peoples from south-western Europe may have been among the earliest settlers in the Americas at some point during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)."Twalls 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this citation from the main page to here because it claims to be from Nature but does not seem to be. First, the URL is not Nature, but appears to be class notes for a utexas class or something. Second, the page has two articles, one from New Scientist and the other from an unidentified source. Googling on the title and name "Steve Conner" seems to indicate that the article is from the newspaper The Independent. The page does contain one footnote reference to Nature, but as far as I can see, the citation, while claiming to be from Nature, is not. But I could be wrong, so I'm moving it here so it can be addressed and corrected. And by the way, I've nothing against this hypothesis, I have only just now heard of it. I just noticed the bad reference is all (citation below). Pfly 03:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conner, Steve, Science Editor, (03 December 2002).Does skull prove that the first Americans came from Europe? Nature, (vol 425, p. 62). Retrieved on August 12, 2007.

Thanks for that, Pfly. You're right, the page consists of two reposted articles as part of course materials of an anthropology course called Indigenous Mesoamerica. Silvia Gonzalez has done quite a bit of work in the field, and turned up some very interesting things, but I'm not sure if it falls within the scope of the Solutrean hypothesis. Some of her finds may lend credence to the notion that long-headed, dolichocephalic European types came to the Americas prior to those of direct Asian descent (I think that's what Thomas Paine 1776 is getting at), but this encompasses other routes (namely, via north Asia) than the Solutrean theory does. This, however, is another topic (however compelling) and may be treated better elsewhere than here.

The Solutrean hypothesis is not brand new, but it is one of several currents of thought that pose serious challenges to the "Clovis first" dogma. However, it is a moot exercise to argue anyone was first; one can only speak of the earliest discovered remains. We have no idea who was "first" because the first migrations were likely so small in number, that evidence of them is difficult if not impossible to locate. Twalls 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my (very) cursory look at the Solutrean hypothesis, it sounds interesting. There are certainly shortcomings and problems with the Bering and Clovis dogma theory. But one difficulty that comes to mind for any theory proposing an important European ancient migration to the New World is that proponents will have an uphill battle to fight thanks to several centuries of somewhat similar, now-rejected theories, often with racist baggage (such as old claims about the Hebrews, Welsh, Irish, and so on, must have come over, as evidenced by the monumental mounds and pyramids and so on, which the native Americans could not conceivably have built themselves!). These kind of old and long discredited ideas make it easy to blindly dismiss any theories of significant pre-Columbian European influence in the New World. I admit my first reaction upon hearing the Solutrean hypothesis, via Paine1776's edits, was along these lines. But reading more, it sounds like there might be something to it, maybe. In any case I agree on the difficulty of demonstrating "first" occupation. Pfly 07:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was just an editorial, but noticed it was simply pasted in from another website: [1] Twalls 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on a revision regarding the mDNA Haplogroup X citings linking Paleothic European (Solutreans) to Ancient Native Americans. A recent study I found at Trace Genetics[2] which contains a .PDF study on the origins of the "X" gene more likely being of Siberian origin.--96.229.166.130 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that link with the good collection of studies in PDF. Let me also point out Reidla's 2003 study which suggests the Altaian/Siberian X is a relatively recent arrival there and that the Native American X is of much earlier provenance.[3] Regards, Twalls 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the X2 marker, then you're correct that the Altai samples are more recent and not from the same time-frame as X markers found in Algonquin and some European/Middle-Eastern peoples. I read on another source that the X2 marker may come from an ancient strand of peoples who may have crossed into the Americas via Siberian route, and that the X2 was far too prominent in the Far East to really consider Western Europe (the Solutrean's region) as the core source, but a shared branch from the same group. I'll look for this article as well, but was last year that I read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.176 (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none, considering that there is no physical evidence of Solutrean artifacts, culture, or dwellings ANYWHERE in North America. Instead, we have a far-reaching assumption that just because a little under 3% of modern day Europeans have the X gene then that somehow validates a Solutrean connection?

Also, the Haplogroup X2 gene is more prominent in the Middle-East and parts of Asia than it is in Europe, yet Dr. Stanford links Spain/France as the geographic "link" genetically, while invoking his idea of Solutrean/Clovis point development as being interrelated.

This truly sounds more like Junk Science and Historic Revisionism with Eurocentric intent. Conversely, I don't think it's outrageous or even Eurocentric to suggest that Paleothic peoples from Western Europe made it over here and mingled with Asiatic migrants in N. America, but Stanford's proposition disregards evidential science and instead opts for logic based on "his" assumptions.--208.54.15.251 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't base judgements on the flawed popular presentations of the theory. It does not depend upon actual Solutrean artifacts or dwellings or art from Europe being found in the Americas - the hypothesis concerns the spread of the toolmaking style and its later influence on Clovis. The model does not require the mass migration of Solutreans across the Atlantic, bringing every aspect of their culture with them and preserving it in the New World, but instead small bands of settlers bringing their toolmaking technology with them. The techniques went through slight transitions and spread to other populations in North America from East to West, eventually becoming the Clovis style.

Also, it's a hypothesis - a proposed, tentative solution - not a statement of absolute fact. "Eurocentric intent" is certainly not the motivation behind the scholarship, and that is quite an unfair claim.

It also doesn't depend upon the presence of Haplogroup X in the Americas, but the presence of X does indeed open a question in its favor - via which route did it get there, and when? One cannot expect the remaining X in Europe and the Middle East to be identical to X in the Americas - it isn't, and no one claims this. Could X have come to the Americas through Asia? Maybe.

Also, the genetic makeup of modern-day Europe is quite different than it was 15-20,000 years ago - the Magdalenian culture replaced the Solutrean, suggesting a population shift, and waves of migrants repopulated Europe when agriculture spread from the Near East, not to mention what other shifts may have happened in between.

Regarding your statement that Solutreans show no evidence of Haplogroup X DNA -- is there any paleogenetic analysis at all of remains associated with Solutrean culture? I'd love to know. Twalls 14:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. inasmuch as the presence of X2a favours a second wave of immigration to America, it is independent support of the hypothesis. It's still just a hypothesis, but hardly "junk science". If X2 is found both in Europe and in the Near East, I daresay a migration route from the Atlantic fringe is rather more plausible than one beginning in Marocco. There is, however, a certain possibility that X2a reached America already with the Bering straight immigration. X2a doesn't prove anything, but it sort of enhances the plausibility of a hypothesis argued on archaeological grounds. dab (𒁳) 11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, X2a doesn't strengthen the Solutrean hypothesis in any way. Morocco, by the way, is not in the Near East. It's quite a way away and in fact is on the Atlantic coast! The archaeological grounds for the Solutrean hypothesis are thin (which is one of the reasons its advocates use the term hypothesis). Dougweller 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the discussion the recent studies mention a probable Asian entry route for X. Thus, the section could be titled simply "Recent genetic research" or just placed under the mtDNA Haplogroup X section since it relates to the Solutrean hypothesis in the context of Haplogroup X. I don't think we need to call it X2A (it was recently renamed), as that is being overly specific. Twalls (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a long title for a section heading. I think this merits inclusion, but it is interesting to note that the researchers involved took the Solutrean hypothesis seriously enough to consider its implications in their study. Still, their study is limited to the samples surveyed, not any populations whose lineages may have since perished without adding to the Native American gene pool (hypothetical Solutreans, Luzia's people and so on). Twalls (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is long, is there a standard I should follow? I just thought it was clear.

There is also Achilli A, Perego UA, Bravi CM, Coble MD, Kong QP, et al. (2008) The Phylogeny of the Four Pan-American MtDNA Haplogroups: Implications for Evolutionary and Disease Studies. PLoS ONE 3(3) and[ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&term=PLoS%20ONE%5Bta%5D%20AND%202%5Bvol%5D%20AND%20e829%5Bpage%5D&doptcmdl=[Abstract]Beringian standstill and spread of Native American founders.]--Doug Weller (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find where in the article it says anything about the Solutrean hypothesis. Paddy Simcox (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't but it discusses some of the same issues -- I've mentioned them here because people might be interested.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like OR to me. Some references seem vital if it is to stay in. Can someone please find some or does this need deleting? Also - the link [4] looks obsolete to me, no mention of X2a and a map with an arrow coming from western Europe, which I think is misleading/wrong. Delete? Find better links?--Doug Weller (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the specifics, maybe even the broad aspects, of MtDNA analysis, but let's assume that Solutreans did cross-over and intermingle with the Asiatic nomads who arrived via the Bering Straits. That being assumed, how is it that only this small strain of DNA (X2) be the ONLY remnant marker left behind by those Solutreans who intermarried with their Asian cousins? Wouldn't there be more DNA markers/strains in common found in the native populations in N.E. America today? Also, the posted information on the main page states that X2 is found in about 3% of "other" native (Asian-origin) aborigines in Central and South America. Just because the concentration of X2 is smaller there is it presumed that they aren't part of this heritage or is it saying that Solutreans landed in South America as well? What about the spear-point analysis down there?--208.179.153.163 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]